Godlike aliens...

If an advanced alien race just happened to contact a faithful individual (you) and offered a choice:

1. Allow you to "save" the world and all it's people with free energy and food.
2. Allow you (or someone that you choose) to identify the "unworthy" that would be removed from the planet Earth to a different habitable planet and
then apply #1 to all the people remaining.
3. Aliens go back to where they came from without doing anything else.

InverseLookingGlass
I need help understanding religion. Believers are welcome here.

Here's the question:

If an advanced alien race just happened to contact a faithful individual (you) and offered a choice:

1. Allow you to "save" the world and all it's people with free energy and food.
2. Allow you (or someone that you choose) to identify the "unworthy" that would be removed from the planet Earth to a different habitable planet and
then apply #1 to all the people remaining.
3. Aliens go back to where they came from without doing anything else.

Which would you choose and why?

I would go with #1. Unlimited energy and food would automatically wipe out the "unworthy". With nothing to hold humanity hostage for and nothing
to manipulate people with, there would be no war profiteers or interests in keeping people poor.

There would still be those who would try to strong-arm it but they would be vastly outnumbered and with no bargaining chips to keep people at bay.

2. Allow you (or someone that you choose) to identify the "unworthy" that would be removed from the planet Earth to a different habitable
planet and then apply #1 to all the people remaining.

You must have been reading my mind from about 10 years ago. I asked for something similar when I "saw" the state of the world.

The "Unworthy" as you put it, in my opinion, have already decided that "they' are the chosen ones. I think the only thing wrong with their
summation is what promised land belongs to them. Let them be Gods of their own red planet, and see how they fair.......

InverseLookingGlass
I need help understanding religion. Believers are welcome here.

Here's the question:

If an advanced alien race just happened to contact a faithful individual (you) and offered a choice:

1. Allow you to "save" the world and all it's people with free energy and food.
2. Allow you (or someone that you choose) to identify the "unworthy" that would be removed from the planet Earth to a different habitable planet and
then apply #1 to all the people remaining.
3. Aliens go back to where they came from without doing anything else.

Which would you choose and why?

Maybe the godlike beings were already given the choice, and that's
why the world is the way that it is right now.

#1: you remove the process of labor from the equation. If human beings never have to earn their living, then they cannot fully appreciate anything
they possess. Part of the value of a thing is determined by the effort we put into attaining. If you give us free energy and free food then all of our
further advancements in science and agriculture become moot, and the efforts of millions of people across the globe become trivial and unimportant.

#2: how do you determine who is, or is not, worthy? If you picked a known religious figure, like, say, the Pope, then you can be sure that every
atheist, Satanist, Hindu, Buddhist, and non-Catholic would be lined up for removal/execution. Likewise if you picked the Dalai Lama, then everybody
who practices a Chinese folk-religion, or some other proponent of keeping Buddhists from attaining full human rights, would be discarded. If you
picked a politician, then their inborn racism, sexism, ageism, and more would color their choices. Human beings are, inherently, segregationists. We
all do it: you, me, the posters above and below me. All of us. So no one could actually pick and choose who deserves to live, or die.

I disagree with you on point one, we would have more time and better resources to further our knowledge of the universe, money would vanish and
instead of people working for money/goods they would work for nothing more than the advancement of themselves and the human race.
It may take a generation to forget the old ways but it would happen.

#1: you remove the process of labor from the equation. If human beings never have to earn their living, then they cannot fully appreciate anything
they possess. Part of the value of a thing is determined by the effort we put into attaining. If you give us free energy and free food then all of our
further advancements in science and agriculture become moot, and the efforts of millions of people across the globe become trivial and unimportant.

#2: how do you determine who is, or is not, worthy? If you picked a known religious figure, like, say, the Pope, then you can be sure that every
atheist, Satanist, Hindu, Buddhist, and non-Catholic would be lined up for removal/execution. Likewise if you picked the Dalai Lama, then everybody
who practices a Chinese folk-religion, or some other proponent of keeping Buddhists from attaining full human rights, would be discarded. If you
picked a politician, then their inborn racism, sexism, ageism, and more would color their choices. Human beings are, inherently, segregationists. We
all do it: you, me, the posters above and below me. All of us. So no one could actually pick and choose who deserves to live, or die.

Which leave us with #3: E.T. go home.

~ Wandering Scribe

Well put and I agree.

You cannot give someone enlightenment.
Evolution is not a gift but something earned.
The path to heaven is a rocky narrow road.

Free energy would halt the advancement of technology. The technological age is based off of discovering better ways to manage our energy
consumption.

Consider Halogen lights, as opposed to LED lights. The latter is an advancement, meant to conserve energy, and increase illumination. If energy were
free, there would be no desire to ever perfect the light-bulb, as the idea of "wasting energy/heat" would never cross the mind of human beings.

If you want another example, take the computer. If energy were free, then the effort to invent new microchips, more energy-efficient processors, and
eco-friendly batteries would not have been undertaken, as the free energy provided by the alien/god would have erased the need for those things in our
minds.

Then, when you halt the progress of science, you also stunt our knowledge of the Universe. Without the effort=reward system which motivates most human
beings today, we would never have invented the satellite, or sent men to the moon, or compiled a sampling of human culture to send beyond our solar
system on Voyager.

The pursuit of knowledge is pointless if there is no application of what you learn. Free energy removes the necessity of application, and therefore
destroys all forward momentum.

Unless you're approaching knowledge as a spiritual Truth (capital T), in which case I could only remind you that there is no universal Truth, which is
the very reason why man seeks God, his purpose, and the meaning of it all through so many diverse channels, such as Buddhism, Christianity, the New
Age, atheism, psychology, the Law of Attraction, Hinduism, humanism, existentialism, and so many more.

So, at the end of the day, #1 is still best: E.T. go home, and let us continue to earn our stripes.

#1: you remove the process of labor from the equation. If human beings never have to earn their living, then they cannot fully appreciate anything
they possess. Part of the value of a thing is determined by the effort we put into attaining. If you give us free energy and free food then all of our
further advancements in science and agriculture become moot, and the efforts of millions of people across the globe become trivial and
unimportant.

We are already currently in a situation like this although in just a slightly different way. The main difference really being who is controlling the
"Hand outs of free stuff" and to whom is getting that "Free Stuff".

I'm not so sure granting Free Energy is actually a safe or good idea actually but that is another topic. However, just free energy and food doesn't
mean that "Working toward something" will just vanish completely. Having food and free energy would just set everyone into a position of not having
to struggle for survival. You would then be allowed to grow to whatever potential you choose.

#2: how do you determine who is, or is not, worthy? If you picked a known religious figure, like, say, the Pope, then you can be sure that
every atheist, Satanist, Hindu, Buddhist, and non-Catholic would be lined up for removal/execution. Likewise if you picked the Dalai Lama, then
everybody who practices a Chinese folk-religion, or some other proponent of keeping Buddhists from attaining full human rights, would be discarded. If
you picked a politician, then their inborn racism, sexism, ageism, and more would color their choices. Human beings are, inherently, segregationists.
We all do it: you, me, the posters above and below me. All of us. So no one could actually pick and choose who deserves to live, or die.

Once again, we already have this situation now but instead of exile to a planet we call it Prison or worse. I understand your position here, but I
think it's a bit unrealistic to some degree. Or do you also think that we should also remove all laws governing people now so that nobody is in a
position of authority over anyone else??

FYI I also believe deeply that this is how it is supposed to be, complete enlightenment for all. But I have serious doubts that our species is
anywhere near capable of it.

Which leave us with #3: E.T. go home.

So you don't think there needs to be changes in the here and now??? Or are you just implying that we do need change, but we should be doing it
without the help of some supernatural/extraterestrial outside help??

Removing the conspiratorial elements, I'm simply looking at the psychological motivations behind human activity. Part of our motivation comes from
reward, compliments, and how our image changes in the eyes of those around us. Pride, ego, confidence, self-esteem: whatever you choose to call
it—and whether you believe it is "good" or "bad"—we all strive off of praise, accomplishment, and reward. When you remove the necessity to earn
something, you cut off our connection to the morale boost that attaining it brings. Giving free energy and free food to the whole planet would remove
two extremely basic motivators: self-sustenance, and our desire to create.

If you turn away from the psychology of the situation though, another very big problem also arises.

15% of the American work-force are farmers. If you suddenly give everyone free food, then 15% of American workers suddenly have no jobs. Similarly,
about 5% of the American workforce are engineers, and 395,000 people are technicians; both fields that deal with energy, technology, and the
advancement of both. If free energy and free food were suddenly introduced into the equation, nearly a quarter of Americans would no longer have a
job.

Even the idea that the farmers, produce-sellers, electricians, engineers, and technicians could all just devote their energies to a different field is
an unsound solution, as it doesn't take into account the average age of farmers, their education level, skill-set, or that most engineers and
technicians spend a good deal of their formative years in colleges and universities learning their trade. The same way that a seamstress cannot
replace an electrician, neither can an electrician or a farmer suddenly drop all they've learned and be a medical surgeon.

Free food and free energy would cripple America's economy alone, without even looking at the economy and labor force of the rest of the world.

Concerning option # 2...

It is wrong to think that whomever is selected to decide who is "worthy" and "unworthy" would not let their personal biases dictate their decision. As
I pointed out already:

A right-wing Conservative politician would banish all Democratic, Liberal, and non-right-wing Conservatives as "unworthy" because their political
persuasions disagree with his/her own. Imagine if somebody from the Tea Party were elected.

Putting a religious figure in charge, like the Pope, the Dalai Lama, or a High Priest/ess would result in faiths which disagree with their own, punish
their adherents, or have an "unworthy" philosophy being exiled. Consider how much violence already inhabits our world because of Christians, Muslims,
Buddhists, Sikhs, and so on. Given the power to vanquish all opposition, someone from the Joy of Satan ministries would not even bat an eye before
declaring it. Same with the likes of Fred Phelps, or the Dalai Lama, whose caste once enslaved those of the country where they lived.

It is human nature to segregate ourselves. Spiritually, politically, philosophically, ethnically, nationally, even based on things as insignificant as
what sports team we root for. No human could be trusted to determine for us who is, or is not, worthy of being a part of the human population, who is
beyond redemption, and who is "good" or "evil".

Such discrimination only gets worse when you apply an extraterrestrial, or divine element to the equation. Our religious books are full of examples of
one god demanding the wholesale slaughter of the adherents/idols of another. And, almost universally, when we, as a species, have discovered a people
whom we deemed "savage" or "primitive" it has unanimously resulted in the superior race committing genocide on the inferior people.

In this case we would be the Native Americans to an alien Christopher Columbus.

Option # 3: go home and let us solve our own problems collectively, as a still-growing species.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.